Thanks very much for the explanations concerning *some* of the operation of this extremely interesting ranking system. I look forward to it each week. One comment, on a part I was sure I could understand: the re-rating of a team's opponents after each of THEIR games and the subsequent re-rating of the team in question is an interesting approach. It could be argued that your rating, relative to someone you've already played, should not be changed by the LATER performance of that someone (opponent). On the other hand, maybe you should do this Anyone have comments on this, out there? My former institution, Eastern Washington University was quite an NAIA basketball power in the Pacific Northwest during the 1970's and early 1980's (and then pretty good at the NCAA II levelin the mid-80's, before going all the way up to Div I status about 1988). Anyway, despite the team's overall success we could never seem to beat our arch rival, Central Washington University (in Ellensburg), at playoff time, and this seemed due in large part to Centrals some- how always being awarded the home court advantage in the finals (which were best-of-three in those NAIA days). Our coach, a pretty cerebral guy who was frustrated as hell by his lack of success in big games with CWU, devised a simplified version of the TCHRP to rank the teams in the northwest division of NAIA Div I (the Northwest). It gave the most points for beating a winning team on the road, the least for losing to a losing team on your home court, etc.--which I gather is similar to the approach TCHRP takes. HOWEVER, "winning" and "losing" definitions of teams depended upon their won-loss record AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU PLAYED THEM. If they were at .500 or above when you played them, they were "winners." Even this system didn't do for us what our coach had hoped. One time, late in the season, we were locked with Central in a tight race for first place in the final standings, prior to the playoffs. Central played a common opponent of ours on a Saturday night. The third team had a record of .500 at that point. Central beat them, and thus got credit for beating a "winning" team (the game was at home for Central, so they got, I believe, 4 points). The next night WE played the same team. Of course it was now one game below .500, so although we beat them (and, I think, by more points than Central had the night before), we got only 3 points! As one of my friends said--"It's hopeless! We built the system and we still can't beat (out) those guys!" Needless to say, as usual CWU had the home court advantage that year again. (In all fairness I must admit that the one time in all those years Eastern did get the home court advantage as fate would have it we won the opening game on THEIR court, only to have CWU come back and beat us two straight on ours! Arrghh!) Anyway--I hope no one minds this apparent digression in to basketball. My point is the various arguments for weighting opponents' records in the figuring of different teams' ratings. What do others have to say about this? Steve Christopher, NMU (Go 'Cats!)